4.  The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence at the Berdychiv Town Correctional Colony (Prison) No. 70, Zhytomyr Region (“the Berdychiv Colony”).
5.  On 4 November 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of Chernivtsi initiated criminal investigations into the murder of Mrs S.
6.  On 30 July 1999 the applicant’s wife was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Mrs S. On 2 August 1999 she was released.
7.  On 4 August 1999 the prosecutors placed Mr V. on the list of persons suspected of the crime. The investigations were suspended.
8.  On 2 September 1999 the applicant was arrested following the issue of a warrant by the Head of the Investigation Unit of the Chernivtsi Town Prosecutor’s Office on suspicion of the murder of Mrs S., and the criminal investigations resumed. The applicant chose Mr Shelepa to defend him in the proceedings.
9.  On 4 September 1999 the Chernivtsi Town Prosecutor remanded the applicant in custody in view of the pending criminal investigations against him. The applicant remained in detention throughout the proceedings.
10.  On 7 September 1999 the applicant and Mr V. were charged with aggravated murder.
11.  On 18 October 1999 the Chernivtsi Town Prosecutor extended the maximum period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months.
12.  On 23 November 1999 the investigations were completed and the applicant, together with his lawyer, was given access to the case file.
13.  On 20 December 1999 the applicant and his lawyer completed their study of the case file.
14.  On 28 January 2000 the prosecutors referred the case together with the indictment, containing charges of aggravated murder and theft, to the Chernivtsi Regional Court (“the Chernivsti Court”). The latter received the case file on 4 February 2000.
15.  On 25 February 2000 the court remitted the case for additional investigation as it was incomplete. It also ordered the applicant to remain in detention. On 6 March 2000 the prosecutors received the case file.
16.  On 9 March 2000 the prosecutors resumed the pre-trial investigations.
17.  On 13 March 2000 the Chernivtsi Regional Prosecutor extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to five months on the ground that it was not possible to complete the investigation.
18.  On 15 May 2000 the investigations were completed and the applicant, together with his lawyer, was given access to the case file. On 5 June 2000 the latter finished consulting the file.
19.  On 22 June 2000 the prosecutors referred the case to the Chernivtsi Court.
20.  On 30 June 2000 the court received the case file and on 19 September 2000 it remitted the case for additional investigation. The court refused to change the applicant’s preventive measure.
21.  On 26 September 2000 the prosecutors received the case file.
22.  On 10 October 2000 the Chernivtsi Regional Prosecutor extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to six months.
23.  On 25 October 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to nine months.
24.  On 28 November 2000 the investigations were completed and the applicant, together with his lawyer, was given access to the case file. On the same day they completed their study of the case file.
25.  On 22 December 2000 the case was referred to the Chernivtsi Court.
26.  On 12 January 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Chernivtsi Region withdrew the case from the court and resumed the investigations.
27.  On 18 January 2001 the applicant was informed that the investigations were complete and that he was charged with concealment of crime.
28.  On 26 January 2001 the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case file. On the same day they completed consulting the case file.
29.  On 1 February 2001 the case was referred to the Chernivtsi Court.
30.  On 5 February 2001 the court received the case file.
31.  On 14 March 2001 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. The applicant was ordered to remain in detention.
32.  On 19 March 2001 the prosecutors received the case file.
33.  On 29 March 2001 the applicant was informed that the investigations were complete, and was given a copy of the indictment, in which he was charged with aggravated murder and robbery. Between 29 March and 2 April 2001 the applicant and his lawyer consulted the case file.
34.  On 6 April 2001 the case was referred to the Chernivtsi Court. On 9 April 2001 the court received the case file.
35.  On 17 April 2001 the prosecutors withdrew the case and resumed the investigations. On the same day they issued an indictment, containing the same charges and based on the same facts as the indictment of 29 March 2001.
36.  On 16 May 2001 the applicant was informed that the investigations were complete and he was given a copy of the indictment of 17 April 2001. On the same day the applicant was provided with another lawyer, Mr B., whom the prosecutors gave access to the case file.
37.  According to the applicant, he had agreed to have another lawyer, as the prosecutors told him that Mr Shelepa had not been able to participate in the proceedings due to his illness. From mid-April to 5 May 2001 Mr Shelepa was having medical treatment in a hospital in Kyiv. The latter was not informed that the investigations were complete on 16 May 2001.
38.  On the same day the applicant and his new lawyer finished consulting the case file and on 18 May 2001 the case was referred to the Chernivtsi Court, the latter having received it on 24 May 2001.
39.  On 29 May 2001 Mr Shelepa was again admitted to participate in the proceedings.
40.  In the course of the investigations, in particular on 11 June and 28 November 2000, and 30 March 2001 the applicant’s lawyer made three requests to the prosecutors that the proceedings against the applicant be discontinued for absence of elements of a crime in his actions. The requests were dismissed as unfounded by the prosecutors’ decisions of 13 June and 30 November 2000 and 3 April 2001.
41.  In the course of the trial, the applicant and his lawyer argued that some of the evidence submitted by the prosecutors had been collected after the expiry of the statutory terms of the investigation and the applicant’s detention and therefore should not be admitted by the court.
42.  On 26 June 2001 the court found the applicant and Mr V. guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced the applicant to twelve years’ imprisonment. It rejected the applicant’s and his lawyer’s argument concerning the admissibility of evidence, holding in particular that the maximum statutory terms of the investigation and pre-trial detention envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure had not expired in the case, and that those terms had ceased to run during the periods when the applicant and his lawyer were studying the case file, when it had been referred to the court, and when the lawyer’s petitions had been considered by the prosecutors. The court, relying on Articles 120 and 156 of the same Code, also noted that the terms of the investigation and detention had actually been extended up to twelve months, as the case had been remitted for additional investigation on three occasions.
43.  In his appeal in cassation, the applicant complained about the wrongful assessment of the facts and a violation of his procedural rights in the course of the investigation and trial.
44.  On 25 September 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.